The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

[37818]

Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe.

Your concept of belief base on assumptions, says volumes, as a fundamental problem with truth.


Neither belief nor assumptions makes anything true.

The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

No a priori belief? But what you have just argued is a priori belief! [The Buddha citation is an embellishment based on what is attributed to him.]

[shunyadragon]

Your concept of belief base on assumptions, says volumes, as a fundamental problem with truth.

correct.

Neither belief nor assumptions makes anything true.

right on!!!!!

No a priori belief? But what you have just argued is a priori belief! [The Buddha citation is an embellishment based on what is attributed to him.]

it is attributed to him, but I do not assume it is necessarily true.

[37818]

Shuny,

Truth is absolute. By what method do you weigh two contradictory truth claims. One can be true or neither can be true. Actually being contradictory, not both.

By empirical experiment where empirical claims can be tested. This is understood.

But how about two metaphysical claims where no empirical test can be done?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

Truth is absolute.

Yes it is, but obviously not from the human perspective.

By what method do you weigh two contradictory truth claims. One can be true or neither can be true. Actually being contradictory, not both.

First, as I said before I cannot assume any one human view an absolute truth claim concerning the nature of our spiritual existence, because there are far too many contradictory truth claims. For example, you have not provided a good argument concerning your truth claims, as to why I should except yours over others, even from among other Christians who disagree significantly with your view.

By empirical experiment where empirical claims can be tested. This is understood.

Not by everyone. When many make absolute truth claims in religion, they will not accept empirical scientific knowledge that appears to conflict with their truth claims.

But how about two metaphysical claims where no empirical test can be done?

None. I could not accept either conflicting metaphysical truth claim as absolute. The fallibility of human nature rules.

[JimL]

God and the eternal Matrix from which all universes arise coexist. The natural world is eternal as the Matrix of the 'First Great Cause.' No engineers nor ex nihilo.

Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-163.html

Bahá’u’lláh teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause. The Creator always had His creation and always will have. Worlds and systems may come and go, but the [greater cosmos] universe remains. All things that undergo composition, in time undergo decomposition, but the component elements remain. The creation of a world, a daisy or a human body is not “making something out of nothing”; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, a making visible of something which before was hidden. By and by the elements will again be scattered, the form will disappear, but nothing is really lost or annihilated; ever new combinations and forms arise from the ruins of the old. Bahá’u’lláh confirms the scientists who claim, not six thousand, but millions and billions of years for the history of the earth’s creation. The evolution theory does not deny creative power. It only tries to describe the method of its manifestation; and the wonderful story of the material universe which the astronomer, the geologist, the physicist and the biologist are gradually unfolding to our gaze is, rightly appreciated, far more capable of evoking the deepest reverence and worship than the crude and bald account of creation given in the Hebrew Scriptures.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree with almost all of the above, accepting for the fact that you assume the eternal Cosmos to differ in some substantive way from the temporal forms it takes. Because an acorn emanates, if you will, from an oak tree, does not make the oak tree a creative deity.

[shunyadragon]

I agree with almost all of the above, accepting for the fact that you assume the eternal Cosmos to differ in some substantive way from the temporal forms it takes. Because an acorn emanates, if you will, from an oak tree, does not make the oak tree a creative deity.

True, nothing makes nothing has to happen from the human perspective.

Actually physically there is no difference. The difference is in our perspective of the spiritual behind the physical.

[JimL]

True, nothing makes nothing has to happen from the human perspective.

Actually physically there is no difference. The difference is in our perspective of the spiritual behind the physical.

And where does the assumption that there is a spiritual nature or being underlying the physical nature of existence come from or is necessary to that existence.

[Cerebrum123]

None. I could not accept either conflicting metaphysical truth claim as absolute. The fallibility of human nature rules.

By this, you couldn't accept the metaphysical claims of the Bahai' faith, since it's in contradiction to other systems of metaphysics.

[shunyadragon]

By this, you couldn't accept the metaphysical claims of the Bahai' faith, since it's in contradiction to other systems of metaphysics.

You are being selective to make things comfortable with your own world view. The fact of accepting the claims of the Baha'i Faith does not remotely mean that what one believes is absolute Truth, which is the arrogant egocentric extreme of a human claim.

[shunyadragon]

And where does the assumption that there is a spiritual nature or being underlying the physical nature of existence come from or is necessary to that existence.

Do not confuse the human nature of belief from the limits of the human perspective of what is necessary. The reasons why I believe are defined in the beginning of the thread, and it did not include the absolute belief that it is necessarily true.

From the first post:

"The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia."

[Cerebrum123]

You are being selective to make things comfortable with your own world view. The fact of accepting the claims of the Baha'i Faith does not remotely mean that what one believes is absolute Truth, which is the arrogant egocentric extreme of a human claim.

Either Baha'ullah absolutely was, or absolutely was not a manifestation of God. One of them has to be true, because of the fact that they are in contradiction*, and the law of non-contradiction exists. I know you pick the former option, don't kid yourself.

ETA: *Part of those pesky contradicting metaphysics you know.

[shunyadragon]

Either Baha'ullah absolutely was, or absolutely was not a manifestation of God.

True, from the perspective of God..

One of them has to be true, because of the fact that they are in contradiction*, and the law of non-contradiction exists. I know you pick the former option, don't kid yourself.

ETA: *Part of those pesky contradicting metaphysics you know.

Yes, one ultimately must be true. The pesky question still persists; "Are fallible humans able to resolve the question of absolute truth?"

[Cerebrum123]

True, from the perspective of God..



Yes, one ultimately must be true. The pesky question still persists; "Are fallible humans able to resolve the question of absolute truth?"

In certain things, that would be an emphatic, YES!

[shunyadragon]

In certain things, that would be an emphatic, YES!

Here is where we disagree. The selectivity of 'Certain things' is too vague and anecdotal to be real. You most definitely need a better explanation.

[Cerebrum123]

Here is where we disagree. The selectivity of 'Certain things' is too vague and anecdotal to be real. You most definitely need a better explanation.

Are the laws of logic valid, yes, can they be used to inform our understanding of other things, yes. There are many others, like, I absolutely know I am typing on my keyboard right now(not by the time you read this post obviously). To know certain things absolutely is not even close to impossible, even for us fallible humans.